CompuServe Messages

Larry, If you look at MIPS ratings as simplistic "bean counters" rather than "wholistic measures", then it is possible to relate one MIP rating to another, in a simple quantitative analysis. This is very similar to "milage ratings" in automobiles. So what if car A gets 45MPG and car B gets 52MPG, you would say if you looked at these "numbers" the same way that you are looking at "MIPS". What size engine does each car have, how big of a gas tank do they have, what is the fuel-air ratio mix, in what conditions were the cars tested, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Certainly, MIPS ratings involve many factors, as do MPG ratings. But are you then going to say that MPG ratings are worthless? Don't MPG ratings cover a wide variety of vehicles, some of which you would never think to ask for such a rating (eg; 'heh doc, what's the MPG rating of your '87 tractor there your using in your bean field?'). MIPS ratings may not be any more accurate than MPG ratings, or vice versa, but they both ARE quantitative measures, albeit perhaps not the most desirable measure, and can be used in simple comparisons. Don't you look at the MPG ratings when you look at cars? If MIPS and MFLOPS ratings aren't enough to satisfy the request for a more thorough systems performance analysis, then we must ask for other measures to be included AND explained. If these other measures could be designed well enough to give a "true, total system performance" regardless of architecture, then lets demand that they be included in all advertisements, et cetera. Unfortunately, I don't think that there IS one, universal test, hence, MIPS and MFLOPS DO show and mean something, and on some uniprocessor systems they probably DO show 'true system performance', or close to it. Instead of arguing whether "MPG" ratings are "still relavent", we should be asking vendors to come up with more definitive test results with more explicit definitions of those tests, and through in MIPS and MFLOPS just <continued>